Flight Dynamics and Stability

– Final Report –

Student: Sandica Dragos Daniil

Group: 931NA
Faculty of Aerospace Engineering
 Vrabac mini UAV
I. The first asignment
1. General Description
Vrabac, also known as Sparrow, is a short-range, mini tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (mini
UAV) designed by Serbian military research and development institution Military Technical
Institute (MTI) for the Serbian Armed Forces. This UAV was introduced in 2008.
Vrabac can perform missions such as reconnaissance, surveillance, aerial survey, target
identification and designation under all lighting conditions. It can also be used in civil
applications, including protection of major infrastructure facilities and inspection of
pipelines, power lines, roads, bridges and forest areas.

2.Specifications:
• Engine: 800W DC
• Propeller: Two blades, graphite composite
• Battery: 28V, 8000mAh
• Wingspan: 2.8 m
• Wing area: 0.75 m²
• Length: 1.56m

2
• Weight: 6kg
• Maximum payload: 1.5kg
• Maximum speed: 85 km/h
• Altitude: typically between 300-500m
• Chord width: 0.27
4.Reynolds number
The Reynolds number is the ratio of the inertia forces to the viscous forces. Re formula:

This UAV was build to fly with the cruise speed of 61km/h, which is roughly 17m/s.The
Reynolds number is aproximately 332.000.
5.Batch Analysis
The purpose of this UAV is to fly on long distances, so good range and stability are important
when choosing the airfoil for the wing. I’ve chosen 4 airfoils for the wing and analysed them
for the Reynolds numbers in the range of 232.000-432.000: NACA 6409,in green, GM 15,in
orange, GOE 795,in purple, and CLARK YM15, in light blue. The analysis of the four
airfoils will be done considering the following characteristics:

• Cl ( )
• (Cl / Cd )( )
• Cl (Cd )
• Cl ( Xtrt )
• Cm( )

3
6.Table of Importance
I have taken for each airfoil the polar at Reynolds=332000 in order to compare them with
each other and decide which one fits best UAV’s requirements. I introduced the maximum or
minimum values of 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥, 𝐶𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛, 𝐶𝑚0, Cl/Cd and 𝐶𝑙3/𝐶𝑑2 in a table, for each airfoil. Each
quantity has been attributed a maximum number of points, depending on how important is
that characteristic of the airfoil to the purpose of the UAV.

4
Because our UAV is mainly developed for surveillance, it means that it should have a low energy
consumption. This aspect is mainly affected by the lift to drag ratio, which defines the efficiency
of the airfoil or, in other terms, how much power do we have to use in order to balance the drag
during flight. The higher this ratio is, the lower the price of the lift will be in terms of drag, so
Cl/Cd will receive 35%. The pitch moment coefficient is also important because stability is an
important factor when it comes to surveillance, so 𝐶𝑚0 receives 20%. 𝐶𝑙3/𝐶𝑑2 gets 20% , lift gets
15% and drag 10%.

Airfoil 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐶𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑚0 𝐶𝑙/𝐶𝑑 𝐶𝑙3/𝐶𝑑2

Clark YM15 1.295 0.009 -0.079 76.654 76.507
NACA 6409 1.474 0.008 -0.155 106.841 126.616
GM 15 1.378 0.007 -0.137 110.077 108.729
GOE 795 1.134 0.007 -0.083 91.658 79.751

The maximum values from the 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥, Cl/Cd and 𝐶𝑙3/𝐶𝑑2 columns and minimum values from
the 𝐶𝑑 ,0 columns will receive the maximum points. The other values will be scored with
respect to those maximum or minimum values mentioned before. Consider the maximum
value for Cl/Cd =110.077. This value will get 10 for GM 15. Then, take the Cl/Cd of GOE
795, which is 91.658. This results in GOE 795 gaining 7.69.
Airfoil 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐶𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑚0 Cl/Cd 𝐶𝑙3/𝐶𝑑2 Total
Points
Clark YM15 8.78 7.78 10 6.96 6.04 7.739
NACA 6409 10 8.75 5.10 9.71 10 8.794
GM 15 9.34 10 5.77 10 8.59 8.773
GOE 795 7.69 10 9.52 8.33 6.30 8.233
Weights 15% 10% 20% 35% 20%

The results indicate that NACA6409 and GM15 are almost the same. My choice is GM15
though due to better stability , having a pitch coefficient at 0 angle of attack smaller than the
NACA contestant.
7. Empennage
For the empennage, symmetric airfoils with 9% to 12% relative thickness are usually chosen
for both fin and elevator of the aircraft. Taking this into consideration, I have chosen the
airfoil NACA0012. Below , I attach the airfoil design and the analysis in XFLR.

5
 𝐶𝑙𝑚𝑎𝑥 𝐶𝑑𝑚𝑖𝑛 𝐶𝑚0 Cl/Cd 𝐶𝑙3/𝐶𝑑2
1.130 0.007 0 55.054 47.280

II. The second assignment

For the second assignment, I had to build the wing by using the airfoil chosen in the
previous project and analyse it in XFLR. Then, I had to calculate the wing polar by using
formulas from the book “Avioane si Rachete” and compare my polar with the polar
calculated by XFLR.
The formulas I have used are the following:
0.383 0.924
0 = 0.5*( + )
1 − 0.924* q 1 − 0.383* q

0.707 0.383 0.924

2 = *( − )
2 1 − 0.924* q 1 − 0.383* q

0.383 0.924 0.707

 4 = 0.25*( + ) − 0.5*
1 − 0.924* q 1 − 0.383* q 1 − 0.707* q

2 − 4 2 2  − 4 4
 = e *( ) + 5*( * 2 − )2
30 +  0 5* 0 +  0 3* 0 +  0 5* 0 +  0

xroot
where: q = (r − 1) / r ; r = - taper ratio and 0 ,  2 ,  4 are wing
xtip
geometry coefficients

6
 Cz r
0 = *
2*  r + 1

 = eC
tip

Cd0 = 2* C f * ; = 1.1 -zero angle of attack drag

1.328
Cf = ; Re = 227500 -friction drag coefficioent
Re

1+ 
Cdi = * Cl2 -induced drag
 *
The final formula which gives the dependency is:

Cd = Cd0 + Cdi

Then, I looked into the XFLR polar data in order to see in what interval does Cl vary. This interval is
between  −0.3,1.2 , so I created a random vector with values in this interval and used it as Cl for
hand calculations,which gave me Cd .Afterwards, I compared the results obtained between my
calculations and XFLR5 polar, comparison shown below.

7
Below are the SolidWorks model and the XFLR model of the wing

8
III. Third Assignment
For the third assignment, I had to design the fuselage of my aircraft and calculate in
XFLR the polar of the assembly wing+fuselage. Then, I had to calculate by hand the
same polar by using the formulas from “Avioane si Rachete” and compare the two
results. For hand calculations , I used MATLAB, whose code is attached below:

9
10
11
Here are both the XFLR and computed polar:

This is my UAV in the 3rd assignment:

12
 IV. Fourth assignment
For the fourth assignment, I had to verify the stability of my airplane. This means that some
changes had to be made in terms of mass and geometry of the plane. I have also added the
tail, using the airfoil from the first assignment, NACA0012, for both my fin and elevator. A
−5 Trailing Edge Flap deflection has been added and the analysis range of stability is [-15
10], with a 1 step for the control surface of the elevator.
The basic concept of stability is simply that a stable aircraft, when disturbed, tends to return
by itself to its original state (pitch, roll, yaw, velocity, etc.).” Static stability” is present if the
forces created by the disturbed state (such as pitching moment due to an increased angle of
attack) push in the correct direction to return the aircraft to its original state. If these restoring
forces are too strong the aircraft will overshoot the original state and will oscillate with
greater and greater amplitude until it goes completely out of control. Although static stability
is present, the aircraft does not have” dynamic stability”.
Dynamic stability is present if the dynamic motions of the aircraft will eventually return the
aircraft to its original state. The way the aircraft returns to its original state depends upon the
restoring forces, mass distribution and” damping forces”. Damping forces slow the restoring
rates.

13
There are 3 important points for the stability of the airplane:
• The center of gravity, denoted CG
o Depends only on the mass distribution of the aircraft
• The aerodynamic center, also called neutral point, denoted AC or NP
o This is the point about which the pitch moment of the aircraft does not
vary with the angle of attack
o It depends only on the geometry of the plane, so its position is fixed with
respect to the angle of attack
• The center of pressure, denoted CP
o This is the point where the resultant aerodynamic force applies. This is
also the point about which the pitch moment is 0.
o It depends on the angle of attack and on the aerodynamics of the plane

14
In order to obtain good stability, the center of gravity must be forward of the aerodynamic
center.

My graph Cm ( ) (red) looks like the example above, so the stability of the airplane is good:

15
The green curves are the polars at equilibrium: Cm = 0 .

The Root Locus View shows the following graphs:

I have made hand calculations in MATLAB for Cm ( ,  e ) = 0 ,where  e is the deflection

angle of the elevator flaps and  is the angle of attack of the wing.

16
17
18
19
After that, I calculated the eigenvalues of the Longitudinal and Lateral state matrices and
saved the values in 2 tables, one with eigenvalues and one with eigenvectors.
For calculation, I took only a22 , a23 , a32 , a33 from both state matrices

The 1st column in Eigenval_Long contains 1 , the 2nd contains 2 .In the same manner I
saved 1 and 2 for the Eigenval_Lat

20
 In the following table I saved the eigenvectors of both state matrices

For the lateral mode, mode 1(roll mode), I have extracted the eigenvalues from XFLR in the
following table:
Deflection 1 Deflection 1
-15 -13.4032 -6 -20.4819
-14 -13.9849 -5 -21.7229
-13 -14.5986 -4 -23.1499
-12 -15.2504 -3 -24.8276
-11 -15.9472 -2 -26.8662
-10 -16.6974 -1 -29.4793
-9 -17.5112 0 -33.1631
-8 -18.4015 1 -39.4218
-7 -19.3845 2 -55.9878

21
For the longitudinal mode, mode 1(rapid mode), I have extracted the eigenvalues from XFLR
in the following table:

Deflection 1 Deflection 1
-15 -3.4516+5.0330i -6 --4.8616+6.8425i
-14 -3.5554+5.1711i -5 -5.1273+7.1532i
-13 -3.6684+5.3214i -4 -5.4354+7.4979i
-12 -3.7917+5.4851i -3 -5.8001+7.8841i
-11 -3.9269+5.6636i -2 --6.2457+8.3268i
-10 -4.0757+5.8584i -1 -6.8192+8.8609i
-9 -4.2404+6.0715i 0 -7.6319+9.5845i
-8 -4.4237+6.3049i 1 -9.0225+10.8373i
-7 -4.6292+6.5609i 2 -12.7405+14.4758i

By comparing the results from xflr for mode 1, both longitudinal and lateral, it seems that the
eigenvalues computed in matlab with only a22 , a23 , a32 , a33 have almost the same values as
those from xlfr.

This concludes my Flight Dynamics and Stability final report.

22